memvid_config

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context by specifying what configuration elements are shown (embedder settings, paths), which isn't covered by annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Show current configuration') and adds specific details ('embedder settings, paths') without unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only tool with no parameters and rich annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks details on output format or behavior (e.g., structured data vs. plain text), which could be helpful given no output schema. It meets basic needs but doesn't fully leverage the opportunity to guide the agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, as there are none, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's output scope without redundant parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current configuration'), specifying it includes embedder settings and paths. It distinguishes this from siblings like memvid_create or memvid_update by focusing on read-only configuration display rather than mutation operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context (checking current settings) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like memvid_status or memvid_state. It provides no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage decisions to inference from the purpose alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.